OK, here goes - everyone at once... (and trying the fancy-dancy block quotes and citations provided by Robert.

"the war wasn't worth the cost"
I hope the entire Democratic party adopts your position before the next election...
Scott

Scott / HabitableZone / April 9, 2003

See my response below regarding costs.

Re 1: Saddam's army was never considered a threat to the US by anyone who supports the war that I have heard. Please tell me how you think they could have transported a large army here. The theat of his army was to his neighbors as he has demonstrated several times. The threat to us was supplying WMD to terrorists which in cased you missed it have been able to infiltrate the US in small but devastating numbers.
Re 2: They probably didn't use them because:
A) They are no tactical use against forces prepared for them.
B) Those charged with using them have been clearly notified they will pay if they do.
C) Those charged with using them probably didn't want to put their life on the line for
Saddam in light of 1 & 2.
Note: WMD would be far more effective as a weapon of terror than against prepared
troups.
RE 3: I agree the jury is out there, but camps were found in Saddam's area as well as the Kurds. I think it is a matter of common sense that two groups who have shown a willingness to use whatever means necessary to acheive their goals would help each other on a common objective if the circumstances warranted it. It is something far to likely to blindly wait for conclusive evidence for. This wait for absolute proof position is what lead to 911. The only way to prevent another is to take a more proactive stance. We shpould be on guard against any group with enmity towards the US with the potential to help terrorists. We have to guard against the anti-war concern of increasing enmity resulting from proactive actions, by doing our best to minimize the damage it causes and helping to minimize the long term impact of it.
RE 4: I share your concerns about the cost and after effect. The cost may well be less than 75 billion for the war if it is indeed over soon. That cost was more of a worst case or second worst case estimate. It is certainly not a forgone conclusion that Iraq will become a beacon of democracy. However, please tell me if you see any more lilkely candidate to become a beacon of arab democracy than a freed Iraq.
Regards,
Mark

Mark Eby / HabitableZone / April 9, 2003

Saddam was said by Bush, Powell et al to be a "clear and present danger" to the US. Not to it's neighbours, not to Iraqi citizens, not to US diplomats - to the US itself. I never said he could get an army over to Florida or Delaware, but the American public was led to believe that they might die in their beds or offices because of direct actions by Saddam. That's a good part of the reason there is high popular support in the US. The US has questionable rights to invade a sovereign country on suspicion of future threats; it has absolutely no rights to invade on suspicion of threats to neighbours, especially neighbours who didn't ask for protection.

WMD use - I still don't buy that they wouldn't have used them if they had them. Running a jeep with a popgun on it against an Abrams (sp?) is more like suicide than using mustard gas for fear of possible future reprisals, or because it might not be entirely successful.

Terrorist camps - them being there doesn't mean they were condoned or supported by authorities. (doesn't mean they weren't either - more investigation is needed). There are terrorist training camps in northern Idaho, for chrissakes!

Costs - see below.

Iraq as a beacon - sure it would be one. I would be a great world leader if I possesed the One Ring, too. Ain't neither one gonna happen.(I borrowed GWB's crystal ball for that one - if you look in the left side, you get an entirely differnt view than if you look in the right side)

1. Our military is the best trained in armed military in the world. No other country could have done what we just did. You make it sound like a negative, but it is a good thing. Iraq had a formable military before it met the US military. The fact that our military has had so few casualties is because, 1. Iraqi’s in general hate Saddam, and two, or military did an excellent job.
Nothing wrong with that.
2. So far the verdict is still out on what has been found so far. Its just a start. This part is not over.
3. Bin Laden’s buddies have been found in both northern and southern Iraq. There were there when Saddam controlled the whole country.
4. Seeing how happy these once oppressed people are at being free, and freeing those children from Saddam’s prison says this was the right thing to do, and justifies going to war.

REB / HabitableZone / April 9, 2003

1. I agree the US military is the best in the world (it damn well should be for all the bazillions spent on it!), and I agree that, if there had to be a war, that it was good it was concluded relatively quickly (though the fat lady hasn't sung yet). Never said there was anything wrong with that, just that it was so uneven a fight that the other side coundn't ever be considered a real threat.

2. OK

3. See my point above about terrorist camps in Idaho.

4. "Seeing how happy the people were and freeing the children" - the ends were a good thing, of course. It's the means I have a problem with.

24,000 children die EVERY SINGLE DAY in our world from starvation and other easliy preventable causes. EVERY DAY! That's about 8,760,000 every year. $75 billion would give them about $850 each, more than enough to prevent most of their deaths. And it could be done without killing anyone in the process.

Over 3 million people have died in the Congo in the past few years. I'm sure the Congolese army would be even easier to wipe out thatn Saddam's.

Saving some people is good, but it doesn't make the war worth it if you want to talk lives or misery.

<"Tell me again how it has been worth it, that it was the only way the best minds in the US of A could come up with to remove a tin-pot dictator?"
As Tom has asked over and over, what do you have to offer after 12 years of pussy footing? Absent any better ideas, what we did seems appropriate. How many "tin pot" dictators have been removed without using force?
The proof of attrocities already found are justifcation enough if we never find WMD. We had no idea of the NAZI death camps until we invaded Germany but the camps alone were justification for the war.
75-80% of the "US of A" people believe this was a just war. That is good enough for me. If the numbers were reversed, I would have some serious doubts about my pov instead of writing off their opinion as stupid and/or inferior to my own opinion.
There is nothing wrong with holding a minority opinion. I have minority opinions on drugs and capital punishment but I will not hold a minority opinion without some alternative ideas that haven't been tried.

FrankC / HabitableZone / April 9, 2003

I made some points over in Offtopic that in my simple way might have some starting points that are better than war.

As far as atrocities go, is the US by itself now going to invade every place where there are past or on-going atrocities? Atrocities need to be dealt with, but I really don't think that they alone would have garnered the 75% or whatever support for the war in the US all by themselves. People don't give much of a damn about other people's suffering if they are far enough away, sadly enough. See my point above about starvation.

And by the way, your opinion IS a minority one, if you count the world as a whole. But of course the world outside the US doen't deserve to have an opinion.

And in closing... "alternative ideas that haven't been tried"?? How will we ever know if they might work if we don't try them?